Follow BI

A surprising court ruling could 'reset the clock' on the Dakota Access Pipeline

Dave Archambault II, chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, waits to give his speech against the Energy Transfer Partners' Dakota Access oil pipeline during the Human Rights Council at the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland September 20, 2016.

source

Denis Balibouse/Reuters

Despite
the controversy surrounding the Dakota Access Pipeline, it
commenced operations on June 1 under an executive order from
Donald Trump.

The pipeline is now shuttling barrels of North Dakota-produced
oil to refining markets in Illinois. But many members of the
Standing Rock Sioux tribe say the pipeline, which snakes through
their only water source, is a death sentence.

Ad

To Energy Transfer Partners, the company behind the $3.8 billion
project, it's a necessary part of the US energy network.

But the project could now face a temporary shutdown because of a
new ruling from a US District Judge.

Legal battle

In July of last year, the Standing Rock Sioux tribe filed a
lawsuit
against the Army Corps of Engineers claming that the legal
and environmental review process for the pipeline was rushed and
undertaken largely without the tribe's input.

Judge Boasberg's recent ruling appears to lend some support to
that claim, but he also determined that the agency "largely
complied" with environmental law when approving the pipeline.

Jan Hasselman, an attorney for Standing Rock, told the Associated
Press that Boasber's decision is enough to "reset
the clock to where we were last fall," when the tribe
demanded a comprehensive environmental study of the pipeline and
asked the Army Corps of Engineers to consider alternate routes
that would not threaten their water supply.

But representatives of Energy Transfer Partners say it's unlikely
to have any real impact.

"It's business as usual today," Ron Ness, president of the North
Dakota Petroleum Council, an organization that represents some
500 energy companies including Energy Transfer Partners,
told the AP. Still, Ness added that the group won't know for
sure how the decision will affect them for several months.

"Obviously, we don't know how all that plays out," he said. "But
clearly the pipeline is running. It's a critical element of the
nation's energy infrastructure."

That may not last, however. The Corps will now need to reassess
the pipeline. Then it could either re-grant the same permit that
it initially approved or suggest an alternate route.

Energy Transfer Partners
said in a statement to AP that it believed the Corps
"properly evaluated both" of the issues that Judge Boasberg said
were not adequately addressed, including how an oil spill might
affect the Tribe.

"Pipeline operations can and will continue as this limited remand
process unfolds," the company said.

'It's going to affect our water'

People who gathered in Cannon Ball, North Dakota, several months
ago to protest the pipeline's construction say the threat of a
leak was a primary driver of their opposition to the project.

caption

Aries Yumul, left, and Waylon Wooden Legs Ballew at Standing Rock.

source

Aries Yumul

"The main reason it's such a big
deal here is that it's going to affect our water supply," Aries
Yumul, a self-identified water protector with the
Oceti Sakowin (the proper name for the people commonly known
as the Sioux) told Business Insider in January.

"Our aquifers and rivers are fed by this river," Yumul said. "If
it were to get contaminated, it would affect all of the tribal
nations. The idea of that ... it would be a death sentence at
this point."

Devashree
Saha, a senior policy associate at Brookings Institution,
told Business Insider in January that the Standing Rock Sioux
seemed to have a solid case.

"If this leaks, it is going to spill into the river. So the
tribe's legal stance - that they were not adequately consulted,
that there are potential water issues here - their legal concerns
are strong," said Saha.

Public health repercussions of these leaks include digestive
problems and rashes. In severe cases, some evidence has even
suggested a link between a burst pipeline and an increased risk
of cancer in the surrounding population.

An in-depth 2010 report from Worcester Polytechnic Institute
looked at the effects of three major oil spills and found that
people who used contaminated water for bathing or laundry
appeared to experience a
higher incidence of skin problems, ranging from mild rashes
to severe and lasting eczema and malignant skin cancers. They
also found increased incidences of digestive problems - and some
types of cancer - in people who ingested the oil directly in
drinking water or indirectly by eating the meat of livestock
exposed to the oil.

These risks are one of the reasons that most large-scale pipeline
projects require extensive legal and environmental review, and
must comply with laws like the
National Environmental Policy Act to ensure all potential
impacts are considered.